Appeal 6003799

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are (i) whether the proposed barn and the retention of the animal shelter comply with the policies of the development plan relating to development in the countryside and (ii) the effect of the proposed barn on the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst part of the proposed barn would be used for equestrian purposes, it would be used to accommodate only one horse. Two of the pens are labelled for chickens and goats and it is therefore evident that much of the size of the building arises in relation to what would be an agricultural use. The internal arrangement of the barn also necessitates a sizeable access space between the four identified areas, which in turn adds to the size of the building. The animal shelter is labelled as being for a mixed agricultural and equestrian use and is a small-scale building of limited visual impact. Nonetheless, there is no substantive evidence provided as to why it is needed for either use.

Policy 10 of the County Durham Plan 2020 (CDP) sets out a number of exceptions which allow for development to be permitted in the countryside. There is nothing before me to demonstrate with any confidence that the agricultural use of the appeal site is operated on anything other than a non-commercial basis, with particular reference to the limited number of animals that are identified as being kept on the site. I did not see anything at my site visit which would suggest that this is not the case. No business plan has been provided nor is there any evidence of the holding operating on a commercial basis in the past.

Criterion (d) of Policy 10 refers to instances where non-commercial agricultural activity is being undertaken. That criterion permits such development where it would be located within or directly adjoining the applicant’s existing residential curtilage and which would be of a scale commensurate to the incidental enjoyment of that existing dwelling. The proposal that is before me would meet neither of those requirements. Consequently, it fails to accord with Policy 10 of the CDP. The provisions of Policy 13 of the CDP do not support a building of the scale that is proposed.

The proposed barn would be a building of a significant size. [name] appreciate that its positioning has been amended following discussions with the Council and that it has been reduced in size, it would nevertheless have a notable visual impact. Although close to the edge of the main built form of the settlement, it would be sited on what is a large expanse of mainly open land which has a rural feel. It would disrupt the open nature of the site and its surroundings to the north and east, leading to harm in that respect. The Heras fencing that is proposed along the road frontage would also not be sensitive to its surroundings. Landscaping and appropriate boundary treatments could provide some screening function but given the length of the perimeter of the appeal site this would require a disproportionate undertaking compared to the scale of development proposed. And, even if it were feasible, it too would be uncharacteristic of the surrounding area.

The appellant refers to a permission1 granted for a similar barn close to the appeal site. However, the Council sets out that a business case was provided in support of that proposal and that the enterprise has a greater number of animals. In that respect and in policy terms, the matters of commercial need and the impact on character and appearance are not unrelated. If there was no requirement to show a justifiable need for a building, then there would be great potential for the erosion of the character and appearance of the countryside through the permitting of a number of such buildings. Conversely, the local policy framework that exists seeks to restrict this type of development primarily to that where a commercial need has been demonstrated. In doing so it factors in that need as a consideration that should be balanced against any visual impact that might arise, when an assessment is made against the development plan as a whole.

The appellant further considers that to require a piecemeal development would be contrary to Policies 10(l) and 29 of the CDP. However, this again speaks to the matter of need and whether there is a justification for the amount of development in its totality, whether as one collective development or on a more piecemeal basis. I have found that this need has not been demonstrated. It is not clear from the plans submitted which, if any, existing structures the proposed barn is proposed to replace.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore fail to accord with the overarching aims of Policies 10, 13, 29 and 39 where, taken together, they seek to protect character and appearance. 1 DM/22/00887/FPA

The National Planning Policy Framework includes policies to support sustainable development in rural areas in order to meet business and community needs, to promote healthy and safe communities, to promote open space and recreation and to make effective use of land. The appellant sets out that the appeal site provides a safe and stimulating environment for children and local people and promotes a healthy lifestyle, provides informal educational benefits and promotes countryside-based recreation. However, I am not convinced that these are considerations which would, or could, only be achieved or sustained if the proposed barn is permitted. Therefore, they collectively carry only limited weight in its favour.

Policy 13 of the CDP states that applicants will be expected to demonstrate adequate provision for the proper care of horses and it is the appellant’s position that the proposal is necessary to achieve that aim. However, the proposed barn is intended to provide space for uses other than those related to the keeping of the horse, and I am not persuaded that a building of this size is needed to ensure compliance with the relevant part of Policy 13. This consideration too carries limited weight in favour of the proposal.

I acknowledge that the proposal has been both reduced in size and repositioned in comparison to what was originally submitted for consideration. However, for the reasons I have set out this has not overcome the matters arising in respect of both main issues in this appeal.

The proposal would fail to accord with the relevant development plan policies that relate to development in the countryside. I have also found that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area as a result of the proposed development. This means that the proposal would fail to accord with the development plan taken as a whole.

The other considerations set out carry limited weight in favour of the proposed development. They would not outweigh the clear harm that I have found and the conflict with the development plan that results.

Consequently, in this instance the material considerations set out do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.